Quadvest v. San Jacinto Riv Auth

7 F.4th 337
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 3, 2021
Docket20-20447
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 F.4th 337 (Quadvest v. San Jacinto Riv Auth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Quadvest v. San Jacinto Riv Auth, 7 F.4th 337 (5th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

Case: 20-20447 Document: 00515964322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED August 3, 2021 No. 20-20447 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Quadvest, L.P.; Woodland Oaks Utility, L.P.,

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

San Jacinto River Authority,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-4508

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs-Appellees Quadvest and Woodland Oaks Utility, investor- owned water utilities, sued Defendant-Appellant San Jacinto River Authority (“SJRA”), a state entity, alleging that SJRA violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when it entered into and enforced contracts relating to the purchase of wholesale water in Montgomery County, Texas. SJRA asserted its entitlement to state-action antitrust immunity in a motion to dismiss, which the district court denied. We AFFIRM. Case: 20-20447 Document: 00515964322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2021

No. 20-20447

I. Quadvest and Woodland Oaks Utility (“Plaintiffs”) entered into contracts with SJRA governing Plaintiffs’ purchase and use of water. Plaintiffs now challenge those contracts as anticompetitive in violation of Sherman Act Section 1. The instant interlocutory appeal asserts that SJRA is entitled to state-action immunity from Plaintiffs’ lawsuit because the contracts were entered into and are enforced pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to replace competition with regulation. See Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980). We first discuss SJRA’s creation and its enabling statute. A. Creation of SJRA and Enabling Statute SJRA is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, created in 1937 by the Texas Legislature to conserve, control, and utilize the storm and flood waters of the San Jacinto River and its tributary streams. According to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), SJRA owns one-third of the water rights to the surface water in Lake Conroe in addition to groundwater- producing wells. Plaintiffs assert that SJRA is both a water wholesaler and retailer, (1) wholesaling raw and treated surface water to utilities that re-sell the water to their end-user customers, (2) wholesaling raw groundwater to municipal utility districts that serve The Woodlands, and (3) retailing raw surface water to its own end-user customers. 1

1 Although the FAC describes SJRA as wholesaling only “raw surface water” to utilities, the GRP Contracts provide for SJRA to also wholesale treated surface water to utilities.

2 Case: 20-20447 Document: 00515964322 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2021

SJRA’s Enabling Statute, as amended, 2 vests SJRA with the authority to:

• “store, control and conserve the storm and flood waters of the watershed of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries,” (§ 3(i)); • “provide water for domestic, municipal, commercial, indus- trial and mining purposes . . . including water supplies for cit- ies, towns and industries, and in connection therewith to con- struct or otherwise acquire water transportation, treatment and distribution facilities and supplemental sources of supply,” (§ 3(v)); • “enter into any and all necessary and proper contracts . . . nec- essary or useful in the furtherance of any power granted by law to [SJRA],” (§ 3(xv)); and • “enter into such contracts . . . with municipalities or other cor- porate bodies or persons, public or private, for the purpose of establishing and collecting . . . rates and other charges for the sale or use of water, water transmission, treatment or connec- tion facilities . . . and any other services sold, furnished or sup- plied by [SJRA],” (§ 3(xviii)). B. The Lone Star District Regulatory Plan In June 2006, the Texas Water Development Board, in association with SJRA and Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (a state entity charged with regulating groundwater use in Montgomery County),

2 See 1937 Tex. Gen. & Spec. Laws, ch. 426; 1939 Tex. Gen. & Spec. Laws, ch. 10; 1941 Tex. Gen. Laws, chs. 480 & 613; 1943 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 371; 1951 Tex. Gen. Laws, chs. 366 & 367; 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 547; 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 698; 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 847; 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws, ch. 1148. According to the FAC, SJRA’s Enabling Statute was deleted from Vernon’s Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated when they were recodified but was not relocated to a new code. All citations in this opinion are to the version of SJRA’s Enabling Statute that is currently in force, which Plaintiffs compiled into a single document as an exhibit to the FAC. We append the full Enabling Statute to our decision for reference.

3 Case: 20-20447 Document: 00515964322 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/03/2021

commissioned a study to assess the County’s long-term groundwater supply needs. According to the FAC, groundwater has historically been less expensive, and thus more widely used, than surface water in Montgomery County. The study determined that, based on projections of future water needs, potable water demand would eventually exceed the estimated sustainable recharge rate of the Gulf Coast Aquifer (Montgomery County’s source of groundwater), necessitating the use of surface water. The report further concluded that new surface water treatment facilities would need to be constructed to meet the projected need for potable surface water. Citing the recommendations of the report, SJRA and Lone Star executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) by which the parties agreed to “pursue a cooperative implementation strategy . . . to finance and provide wholesale surface water to converting [groundwater] users,” “to spread financing costs . . . in an equitable manner to all permitted users of water throughout [Montgomery] County, regardless of which particular users actually convert from groundwater to surface water,” and to assess water use fees to “equalize the cost of groundwater and surface water.” Lone Star subsequently adopted a District Regulatory Plan (the “Lone Star Plan”) to regulate groundwater production in Montgomery County, consistent with the MOU. Among other requirements, the Lone Star Plan mandated that all “large volume groundwater users” (“LVGUs”) 3

3 The Lone Star Plan defined “Large Volume Groundwater User” or “LVGU” as “any person or entity that, through a single well or a combination of wells, actually produced or was authorized by a permit or permits issued by [Lone Star] to produce 10 million gallons or more of groundwater annually from the Gulf Coast Aquifer within the [Lone Star] District during calendar year 2009. A Large Volume Groundwater User does not include any person or entity that produces groundwater solely for its own domestic use associated with a single family residence, agricultural use, as that term is defined by Chapter 36, Water Code, or both domestic and agricultural use.”

4 Case: 20-20447 Document: 00515964322 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/03/2021

reduce their groundwater consumption to either (a) 70% of the volume they were permitted to produce in 2009 or (b) 10 million gallons (the “Groundwater Reduction Rule”). Alternatively, LVGUs could satisfy the Lone Star Plan by participating in a “joint groundwater reduction plan” (“Joint GRP”) with one or more additional LVGUs, pursuant to which the LVGUs could achieve 30% groundwater use reduction on aggregate, rather than individually. C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 F.4th 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quadvest-v-san-jacinto-riv-auth-ca5-2021.